Book Review: Extraordinary, Ordinary People by Condoleeza Rice

No more excuses. And no more nonsense either. This is the central theme of Condi Rice’s highly personal, often humorous memoir, “Extraordinary, Ordinary People”.  In an apparent tribute to her loving and devoted parents, Rice focuses on her incredible, yet matter of fact upbringing.

Rice leads us (of course) back to Birmingham, Alabama circa early 1960’s-a city that refused to enact federally mandated civil rights legislation for years. From the perspective of a teenager living on the “black”  (albeit middle class) side of town, Rice explains with dignity and mirth the limitations and the advantages of her upbringing, even in the most overly racist government in the United States at that time.

Including many funny anecdotes and memories, Rice takes the reader by surprise. She reflects on her formative years with candor and honesty without any heavy social or political analysis. You will be shocked by Rice’s many crushes, her affinity for acid rock, and be warmed by her love for her parents.

Writing in a warm and emotionally engaging style, Rice graciously opens the door to a time that people my age only know about from history books. But she does not demonize or blame even the most virulent personages such as the notorious George Wallace. Even with her parents, Rice willingly acknowledges the tremendous toll their sacrifices for her took on them both personally and professionally.

You really get to know Condi through this book- both the woman and the achiever. If I could ask Ms. Rice a question, I would wonder why she chose to share such personal revelations now? Although there are some opaque areas regarding her personal life, I don’t feel as if she is deliberately hiding something, but is exercising her right to keep some things sacred. The only area where this book falls short is regarding Rice’s decision to address personal disappointments and career failings in a detached, almost impassive style as if such things are not worthy of reflection. Or perhaps she inherited the stoicism of generations long past to simply “get on with it.”

However, Rice does not hold back describing her many achievements, not the least of which is her impressive skill with the piano. She seems to throw herself into any vocation requiring only the most difficult work, including studying the Soviet Union despite its unpopularity at the time, becoming a professor and Provost of Stanford University, working as National Security Advisor and ultimately becoming the first African-American female Secretary of the State.

But Rice is not touting or bragging. She attributes all of these amazing and seemingly impossible achievements to the dedication of two loving, yet imperfect parents. Parents who sacrificed much for their only child.  Parents who didn’t and couldn’t look to the government for succor, but to God.

Without pointing her finger, she gently prods today’s generations to do better, work harder, think differently, and be truly courageous.

I was immediately engaged by this book and flew through it in a few days, far more quickly than I had planned and intend to re-read it again more thoroughly. But perhaps Rice intended it so. She does not strike me as one who wallows in sad memories or welcomes pity, but a true achiever who presses forth to the next high mountain and prefers that others do the same.

In a recent online interview with Time Magazine, Rice was all smiles, looking relaxed and content- a far different image than the often solemn bureaucrat from the Bush Administration. Rice has said in interviews that her political days are behind her.  Hmm. It is difficult to imagine Rice, with her intellectual prowess, resiliency, dedication, and political connections simply retiring to the mountains of her beloved Colorado for the next 30 years. I daresay, she has mountains yet to climb. An extraordinary feat for some, yes, but quite ordinary for one who does it all the time.

Natural Hair Care Reverts!

Recently, I attended an event celebrating the natural beauty of Black hair. The event was sponsored by a major purveyor of relaxers and other "natural hair care" products for Black hair, primarily Black women's hair. Most of the numerous attendees sported their natural hair, loud and proud. One of the main highlights of the evening were "easy" natural hair care styles, that only required just a few short hours of preparation and styling. Hmmm....

When I think of natural hair, particularly for African-Americans, I think of the proud and tall Afros of the 1970's, complete with a pick sticking out of the middle. What does not come to mind is curlers and multiple bottles and jars with ingredients too complicated to pronounce without an English teacher present.

So just how natural is natural? Well, that depends on what your definition of natural is. Mine apparently does not jibe with the ideas of well-known hair care companies. Coiffed natural hair is an oxymoron to my mind. After all, if the point of being natural is to wear your hair as God intended, where does all the styling come in?

Several of the participants reasoned that they wanted people to accept them as they are vis-a-vis accepting "our hair" as it is. Again, I take issue. Deciding to stop putting chemicals in your hair is completely reasonable, but if your hair-do's still imitate those with straight or non-natural hair, then what point has been proved.

Celebration is premature in my mind. Hair has never been a good indicator of self-worth, or any other marker of value. However, hair has always been a marker of social status (or lack thereof) and personal self-expression. How telling that in 2011, hair rules our self-perception as much as in the days of the conk and pressing comb.

So don't throw away your weaves and lace wigs just yet, hairstory may repeat itself sooner than you think.

The Christian Politician Rises Again

You can tell that Republican presidential hopefuls are getting desperate when the “R” card raises its ugly head.  Religion and Republicans are always a dangerous mix.

Governor Rick Perry was recently quoted by a Christian radio station confidently saying that he will “practice his faith” if elected to the presidential office, by some miracle. I was puzzled by his quixotic statement. I later learned that this was a sly dig against President Obama, who sometimes plays golf on Sundays instead of “practicing his faith.”

I wonder if sly insults count as “practicing ones faith.” Politicians rarely practice what they preach and I doubt that practicing faith would be the first area that they actually kept a promise in.

And what does that remark mean anyway? Is he saying that we will see him at church service every Sunday? Should that give the nation courage? Should I be reassured or terrified by that prospect?

So it seems Governor Perry’s confusing soundbyte has raised more questions than it answered.  Personally, I am not comforted by a remark that reminds me of an arrogant superhero bellowing from the skies, “Here I am to save the day!”

Who says we need a politician to “practice his faith”? It seems to me that we need a politician to keep his word and effect change, particularly for the indigent. We need a politician who loves God and humanity more than the sound of his own cognac-smooth voice. We need a politician who stutters a little bit when he talks to remind us that he is, after all, just a man (in a funny red sheet).

Practicing faith (if such a thing exists) is not a matter of political duty or polarization. It shouldn’t be a sudden outburst amid a lucrative political campaign nor a convenient genie that is summoned to rescue us when things get tough or make us look good.

It’s no wonder religion has such a hard time finding a place in politics when it’s spirit is continually invoked by the down and desperate.

Before You Move

The location is perfect. Twice the square footage. Affordable monthly payments. These are the usual concerns when moving to a new place. But what is the spiritual climate of your new town and just how close is your new house to your new church?

Most of us just assume we'll "find someplace" to go to church in a new city, as if selecting a new church is just the same as finding the nearest Walmart. But what if the nearest church is Roman Catholic and you are non-denominational. Will you really attend a conservative Mass week after week?

With the availability of the internet, there is no reason not to Google 3-6 churches within a reasonable proximity of your new house that you can research and visit. Many churches have Facebook and Twitter pages that you can link to and see what kinds of ministries and events are going on. You can download or stream services to your Smartphone or Tablet to get a feel for the style of sermonizing. Don't assume that you'll be able to drive to the nearest Baptist church; it could be 50 miles away.

Moving provides a great opportunity to start fresh and this carries to your spirituality as well. If you have a lackluster church attendance record, rarely volunteer at your current church, and hardly know anyone, this could be a great chance to change that. Pick a church that has ministries that cater to your specific needs. If you are Single, look for a church that has an active Singles Ministry and lots of events going on during the week. For couples and people with kids, I suggest looking for churches that have couples or kids' oriented ministries.

Your spiritual well being is just as, if not more, important than the quality of the school district or your granite countertops. Make it a high priority so that you don't succomb to feelings of loneliness or detachment that can lead to spiritual disillusionment, altogether.

If, for some reason, there are no churches within the distance you are willing or able to drive, then you might need to look at some other place to live. I know it sounds drastic, but what is more important, where you live or how you live?

God has a way of working things out for people who are willing to make a small sacrifice for Him. So yes your new house should be the center of your home search, just make sure it's His House.

Lessons From The Storm

Kirk Franklin’s aptly worded intro says it all, “The myth is that storms have to do with punishment; that they are God’s response to sin or his disappointment in us as His children…”

Over the past three days, every news reporter with access to a green screen and storm tracker has unnecessarily set the teeth of the sturdy Eastern Seaboard on edge by declaring a virtual weather Armageddon in the form of Hurricane Irene. What’s worse is how many Christians have responded to the numerous doomsday reports with fear and a level of national preparedness unheard of since stop, drop, roll.

Like mynahs, we mimick the fears and panic of a lost and dying world, desperately trying to prepare for the worst. A few days ago, an earthquake struck the same stalwart East Coast. There was no warning, no indication. Simply uncontrolled tremors rocking even to the very heart of New York City. If the Richter had registered just 1 or 2 points above the 5.8 rating, millions of lives would have been lost in just a few seconds. How’s that for being prepared?

The saying goes “Prepare for the worst…” but that sounds contrary to the teachings of Christ who says “Ask and it shall be…” So you stocked up on water, so that you can live survive underground like a mole for 20 years?

So we’ve taught ourselves, or been trained, to prepare for the worst and as Christians we have done just that in every aspect of our lives. We expect the worst job, the worst outcome in all circumstances, we expect trouble and disappointment at every turn. Why hope for an ideal mate? Just marry the first person who shows any interest in you. Why try for a better apartment? You’re probably not going to get approved due to your bad credit anyway. Christians emulate the example of Eeyor more than Jesus and it is sad.

Apparently, the thought of a storm sends the holy terrors up our spines even more than living an unfulfilled life. I don't fear natural storms because they bring cleansing and awareness. Wind and rain force mortals to recognize their awesome unquenchable power to destroy. They force us to slow down and stay put.  They force us to...prepare. But instead of hording supplies that are bound to spoil or run out, why don't you prepare for a better life? Why don't you get ready for the shake up of your life an expect the miraculous instead of the mundane?

By now, you can tell that I didn’t rush to any store to stock up on anything in particular. I figured that if worse comes to worse, I’ll just join a zombie mob and munch on my well prepared former friends.

So the storm is passing over now. Whew. Aren’t you glad you were prepared?

Christians! Just Say No!

The idea of “turning the other cheek” has never been misinterpreted more than in recent times. Christians, desperately trying to become 24 hour do-gooders, have lost the capacity to learn to when and how to say no.

Somewhere in the past 2,000 years since Christ walked among us on the earth, Christians have tried to walk in His footsteps and rightly so, but where in Scripture does Christ teach to take on more tasks than you can possibly do and agree to juggle home, family, and church obligations all at once?

I have observed Christians reluctantly saying yes to all kinds of additional duties and projects because they didn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings. But should saying no, when one is already overloaded or incapable of completing a favor, even grounds for hurt feelings? Have we become so self- centered that we would rather guilt trip someone because they don’t want to be a 24/7 slave?

I cannot site a specific Scripture where Christ said, “No, I’m not doing that.” But He did take plenty of roundabout journeys and sidetracks before performing certain miracles, like raising Lazarus from the dead and the nobleman’s daughter. Christians need to take such delays more seriously. Jesus did say, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no.” I would rather someone tell me flat out that they cannot do something than to end up doing it in a half-hearted, inefficient, or incorrect way.

Living up to God’s holy standard has little to nothing to do with amassing a number of jobs that you don’t have time to do. The Lord constantly stressed the importance of quiet time with Him. After all, He’s the one doing the work, right?

Before you take on too many tasks on even one task that you truly are ill-equipped to handle, ask yourself, Why I am doing this?  To be more like Jesus or out of guilt?

I’ve had several experiences where I’ve had to tell other Christians, “No, I can’t make it..” or “No, I haven’t the time..” only to be met with a baleful glare as if I should become an bobblehead everytime a Christian asks me to do something. I learned years ago about the art of saying no from a business and a biblical standpoint to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Not to mention to preserve my sanity.

I have witnessed other Christians try to strong arm fellow brothers and sisters into accepting church responsibilities and, even more outrageously, duties that someone else was supposed to do, but because Sister so-and-so got overwhelmed (a result of doing too many tasks), she wants someone else to shoulder the burden.

This should not be so.

The usual reason that people accept too many responsibilities has everything to do with outside appearances or a misplaced feeling of guilt. Trying to “be good” instead of seeking God before we take on anything, great or small, is futile and can only lead to resentment, disillusionment, and ultimately meltdown or a breakdown.

Next time you are asked to do something, say, “Let me think about it for a day.” Then pray on it and ask wise counsel from 1-2 objective people.

If you can’t do it, respond to the person immediately saying, “I simply won’t have time because of…” Don’t lie and don’t fudge. Just be direct.

Jesus completed all of His Father’s work in three and a half years with plenty of prayer time, rest stops, and “detours” along the way. Nothing was left undone, half-done, or half-baked that He needed to accomplish. Remember, without Him you can do nothing.

Press to President Obama: Avoid The Appearance of Evil

Pretend to be poor. That is what pundits, so-called reporters, and other political critics suggested the President do this week. All of this is in reaction to the Obama family’s annual vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, balefully described by a newscast on a Christian radio station as “a playground for the rich and famous.” Funny, I know plenty of not so rich and famous people who vacation or visit there routinely, but I digress.

The major reason for this outrageous criticism is to stage some kind of “sympathy” poverty with the 25 million unemployed and underemployed Americans. Symbolically, the President’s actions should mean something, but realistically they don’t.

I refuse to begrudge President Obama a vacation of any kind. And neither do I begrudge the rich their mansions or the famous their photogenic good looks. One man’s treasure does not automatically make me a pauper, nor do I count my role models among politicians and certainly not the critics, many of whom have access to large bank accounts and lavish homes, even while pretending to eschew those things.

I won’t bother naming the specific names of certain columnists and critics because that would mean acknowledging their opinions as important, and they aren’t. It would also be lending credence to what has become a redundant argument.

The First Lady was previously criticized for a “lavish” European vacation by members of Congress no less, whose salaries come from the coffers of American taxpayers, yet many of them own multiple homes on Martha’s Vineyard and other upper class hot spots, while the Obamas are merely renting a place.

The Obamas pretend poverty would be meaningless and even discouraging. The hypocritical rage of the press comes from their own lack of grounding in firm spiritual principles. They prefer the appearance of goodness, rather than goodness itself, fulfilling the prophecy of Paul that men would prefer “the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.”

What difference does it make it a millionaire wears coutour or ripped jeans? They are still millionaires at the end of the day. It was once illegal in England for a poor man to even wear the same clothes as the rich because it was considered deceitful.

What example or lesson should the average unemployed American take from the President’s vacation? Nothing. I certainly didn’t think anything of it and was appalled that professional reporters would be cheeky enough to use the President's earned vacation time as their whipping boy for these tough economic times.

The idea of the President being “one of us” certainly sounds nice, but after all he is the President and you are not. As I have written in a previous blog, the rich and famous are definitely not like us.  But if an opportunity to spend quality time with the family arises, we might certainly benefit from being a little bit more like them.

W.W.O.D.? (What Will Oprah Do?) 5 Smart Ways Oprah Can Save OWN

Note: The Oprah Winfrey Network is in the middle of a major overhaul after months of slumping ratings. If the execs take my advice, OWN will enjoy the same runaway success and more as its namesake.

It seems The Oprah Show and The Oprah Winfrey Network already have something in common. They both need Oprah-badly.

The highly rated conclusion of The Oprah Show should have segued nicely into an explosive birth for the nascent Oprah Winfrey Network, but after months of hype, this baby is still in labor.

I’ve highlighted some painless solutions that could still make the arrival of OWN and the departure of Oprah a montage made in heaven.

Name An Heir Apparent.  Oprah’s impending departure was an open secret for years. The coveted 4pm(EST) timeslot would finally be available to anyone for the picking. Curiously, not only did the networks fail to produce any truly interesting programming (or any programming at all), Oprah didn’t either. Surely she could have used her influence to suggest a new type of show or at least launch some Oprah hopefuls.  OWN accepted thousands of audition tapes (including mine) for “Your Own Show”, but that idea seems to have now fallen into the same abyss as the 4pm timeslot. Months after the Oprah Show has stopped production, a black hole remains.

Tell Us Why. Numerous promos for OWN ran reminding Oprah Show viewers  to watch the Oprah Winfrey Network, but I don’t recall any specific highlights, unless you count Shania Twain’s show, which seems pointless to watch since she already sat down for a confessional with Oprah. Normally, networks draw traffic by hyping 1 or 2 of their highest rated babies. In the case of OWN, the public was basically bombarded with promises and expectations, but no delivery. The confusing roster of shows was apparently a red flag to many viewers who clearly want to see Oprah and only Oprah, not celebrities capitalizing on their personal tragedies.

Out With The Old… Many of the hosts on OWN are familiar faces and apparently that’s not a good thing. Dr. Phil, Suze Orman, and Dr. Oz, among others, all were scheduled to appear either in re-runs or as part of new programming. With so many potentially great original new programs, it’s unclear why someone would tune to a new network to watch repeats of a show still in production. Exactly how many times a day do we need to hear the sage medical wisdom of Dr. Oz? I believe the execs at OWN finally realized this because as of mid-July, all of the network’s programming is being overhauled.  No offense to Rosie O’Donnell or Sarah, Duchess of York but, uh, haven’t we seen you already?

Not only were too many formers guests/tv hosts being recycled, but all the programs were of the self-help variety. Normally networks diversify their programming to draw a range of viewers, not that it necessarily makes for better tv, but at least viewers know they have the option to watch something slightly more interesting than a 24/7 bombardment of Ph.D’s telling us how to improve ourselves.

Location, Location, Location. Los Angeles. The most exciting city in America west of, well New York City. In a truly brilliant move, OWN changed addresses from the sleepy mid-west to the dynamic PCH coastline. There are only about a million and one ways to capitalize on what is prime television production real estate; a diverse population, stunning locations, buff beach bodies, a plethora of “green” entrepreneurs and dynamic companies, not to mention dozens of beloved out-of work celebrities who probably would jump at the chance to be part of OWN. The city is practically begging for OWN’s cameras to come and find them. And who could do a better job of showing us the heart of L.A. than Oprah?

Show Us The…Oprah! Oprah’s presence or absence is what viewers feel most. At one point, Oprah committed to 70 hours of “on-camera” time for OWN, but compared to the 200+ hours annually that viewers were used to seeing her, it’s obvious that viewers were weaned fast…far too fast. The natural reaction is abandonment on both sides.  Oprah was ready to be an empty nester, but, oops, the kids want to move back in. Currently, a huge viewer contest is in the works (oprah.com/own) with 15 winners to receive all expenses paid trip to Atlanta to meet Oprah. And that’s all anyone ever wanted in the first place.

The End of Summer...School

I'm tired of seeing kids being tortured for no reason.  As I write, my peripheral vision picks up the listless gaze of a teen being grilled on integers by her relentless tutor. This summer, I've never seen more reading programs, college prep programs, honor roll bumper stickers, and learning dvds. All aimed at the purpose of supposedly "preparing" kids and teens for a non-existent future job.

Pushing children to achieve was normally the past time of the suburban mom, but due to the high rate of "failing" schools, particularly in urban areas, now city parents have jumped on the bandwagon of pushing their kids to "compete" with....I'm not exactly sure whom they're supposed to be competing against.

Year round school is the favored option of several of my Facebook friends and others due to the fact that the children can't remember anything when the school year rolls around again. Others note that you have to keep kids "on track", like children are living breathing pint-sized locomotives.

But I still ask, keep on track to where? Or for what? College? CNN recently ran an article discussing the many American families who are opting out of college due to the skyrocketing costs. For minorities, the scenario is even worse due to the crippling debt many incur by being recruited (or targeted, some say) by expensive private colleges. Being an overachiever doesn't automatically translate to financial stability. More than 70% of German teens are apprenticed rather than attending colleges, resulting in a more stable and practical academic and financial future.

I challenge parents who have children enrolled in multiple programs, as to the ultimate purpose of all this achievement. Take a look at the Department of Labor statistics for future job growth. Most industries will be on the downturn for years to come, including many professional careers, so choose cautiously.  Some will argue that children and teens need to be kept occupied to stay out of trouble and focused.  In other words, someone needs to watch our children because we are otherwise preoccupied.

I'm not afraid to simplify an unnecessarily complex issue because isn't that what we learned to do in math class?  A little event called the Recession began a few years ago in response to rather distressing consumer behavior, where many of us borrowed ( in the form of credit cards and loans) in order to keep certain lifestyles afloat. Parents want to live in suburban mcmansions so that their kids could be "safe" and go to "good" schools, even if it meant that both parents had to work full-time and then some on less than satisfying jobs to support a well meaning, but self-defeating rationale. The parents ended up far too exhausted to have much interest or time in their children's academic progress. Irritation and frustration ensued, resulting in divorce....you get the message.

In other words, we keep trying to solve the problem of low academic interest and achievement among modern children by forcing more academic pursuits or busy work, as it was called in my day, down their throats. "Achieve!" We yell. "For what?" The kids yell back. "To get a good....?"  Jobs are gone, mostly for good and most of them weren't that great anyway.  And yet we push our kids ever closer to the edge of an ever shrinking employment line.

When's the last time you asked your child what they actually want to do with their lives? Do you have any idea of what your teens are actually good at? Are they interested in anything? I recently came across a computer software website started by the owner when he was 12. He used paper route money and stayed focused. He never bothered with college and is now a thirtysomething millionaire. Most of the personalities we religiously watch on television never were academically astute either, yet they manage to stay focused enough to be on tv night after night.

There are a wealth of opportunities out there, mostly open to people who know how to think outside the box, a topic rarely discussed in college achievement classes. Most of us have I-phones, a product of a company started by a man who was once ejected from his own company, but has made the business comeback of a lifetime. Ironically, his last name is Jobs.

Summer is supposed to be the time for families to reconnect and be mentally and physically rejuventated after months of unpredictable seasonal changes and hard work. We've turned it into a worthless extension of classroom learning and endless "catching up" for children who were never behind in the first place.

Book Review: "Sweet Summer" - Bittersweet

Rarely has the turning of the years felt as welcoming as in Sweet Summer: Growing Up With and Without My Dad.  Bebe Moore Campbell's poignant memoir about her life from the 1950's through the 1970's, was penned more than a dozen years ago, but holds the same ageless truths, wonders, and questions of many childhoods. But it is Moore's chameleon like talent for capturing and expressing the personalities and emotions-the very hearts and souls- of a kaleidoscope of characters that distinguishes this memoir apart from many others I have read. Reading this book is is like watching Madame Tussaud's wax figures suddenly open their mouths, complain about their appearance, and invite you to coffee.

Moore lingers over her childhood years, breathing life into her younger self as an artist slowly saturates a canvas with color and emotion. Emotion by emotion, Bebe the 7 year old emerges and miraculously grows up right in front of you. She doesn't paper over her thoughts and actions, as some memoirs do, or attempt to interpret her life with a maze of psychological wisdom in some vain attempt to renovate or reinvent herself as heroic from cradle to grave.

As a 7 year old shuttled between her mother in North Philly and her father in Nowherespecial, North Carolina, Moore brilliantly explains the excitement and toil of her annual summer treks using the simple language and reactions of a child. The passing of the years reveals family angst, personal pride, self-doubt and the stresses many children of divorce of required to carry. Puberty brings on the requisite waves of teen anger and disillusionment from not having a "normal" life.

There are no judgments from Moore. Her beloved father is not suddenly memorialized as perfect nor are the numerous personas that pass in and out of her life over a 20 year period.

The purpose of Moore's book was to describe life as her father's pet, even while clinging to false hopes of her parents reconciliation and adopting surrogate fathers through her growing up years, taking the form of male relatives, neighbors, and acquaintances. While some critics have pointed out that Moore is obviously using her life as a comparison for the many Black children growing up without their fathers, Moore advances her point, not through social moralizing, but by explaining when she missed her father most.  Recitals, after school, as a daily balance of fun to her mother's ambitions.

Moore's father, paralyzed for many years before his tragic death, is in many ways, the ideal father. He is there when he is most needed, not wanted. He is the "provider" of an era gone by, ensuring his child has all the necessities: a strong family connection, and a way to contact him at all times.

Moore's memories raised many of my own from the grave of childhood long past. I wondered what I would find myself recalling in my 40's or 50's. What memories or absences will stand out? Who will emerge as the heroes and the villains? How will I be remembered and who will do the remembering? It will be quite impossible for you to read this book without musing over such sobering thoughts yourself.

Reluctantly, the only flaw I discovered in this remarkably human autobiography was the final page, which reads like a self-assessment or the many tests that Moore excelled at as a child. She clearly felt the need to record a "passing" grade. As if to say, "I did it. I made it through life even with only partial access to my father." For the emotional reader, such as I am, it was a clinical ending to an otherwise engaging and honest book.

You will smile, laugh, cry, get angry, wonder why, and hope for the best, just as Moore did for those in her life. You will rush to judgment and then repent. You will blame your parents and then, overwhelmed by remorse, suddenly crave their touch, even when it is beyond all earthly power to get one.

Ms. Moore was laid to rest almost 5 years ago, having succumbed to the inscrutable and relentless great equalizer at the age of 56- long before the literary world was ready to do without her. I purchased this book last year and put it on my bookshelf until now. I knew I would read it at the right time and in a reflective mindset.

I stand at my own crossroads-Ms. Moore has long crossed over into an endless summer. And you, will you dare to cross this threshold at all?

Should Christians Shop at Wal-Mart?

Deal Days
Remember the "Blue Light Special"? This was the joy of every deal conscious Kmart shopper. Kmart is long gone (mostly) and Walmart, home of the fractionally priced specials, reigns as our deal making daddy. Their everyday low prices are so seductive that even Christian households depend heavily on the megachain to stretch our dollars. But is there an ethical conflict that arises from shopping at a conglomerate that has ruined so many other discount stores?

Getting the lowest price and the best deal has always been a concern for the American household. In today's economy, ruined by recession, the mania for cheap prices and cheap items has infiltrated even sensible spenders.  The cheapest item is not always the best quality. Just as the cheapest food is not always best for the body. However, Walmart's savvy pricing strategy has many consumers convinced that they are getting the most for their money by one-stop shopping. Dazzled by deceptively low prices and a plethora of merchandise, consumers have forgotten that more ethically minded companies do exist for good deals.

Walmart has been targeted by watch dog groups on a number of counts: gender discrimination, low pay, poor working conditions, strong arm tactics with distributors, and the list goes on. In the Bible belt, often the only store to shop at within miles is Walmart. Urban areas have more discount store chains, but don't often have the large selection of merchandise. So it would seem that even Christian customers are as easily lured in by the stuff as by the savings.

Conscience Friendly Shopping Solutions
Other stores will often honor competitors advertised pricing. I've discovered that shopping at CVS, Family Dollar, and even mall department stores often saves me money on higher quality beauty products. Wal-mart sells a lot of household items in bulk and larger families may feel compelled to buy 40 rolls of tissue for $9, but there is a method to Walmart's bulk madness;  when a consumer buys more they use more. Buying a large amount of cheap laundry detergent may seem like a bargain, but truthfully buying a higher end concentrated brand is actually best. You use less of the liquid because it's concentrated and can add a detergent booster like baking soda for added cleaning power and freshness. Same goes for fabric softener; buying cheap fabric softener fails to add any softness to the clothes; it is more economical to buy the concentrated name brand- you end up using less and getting a better result.

Don't make any store your "one stop". Clothes should come from clothing stores. Food from food stores.  I refuse to buy candy bars or bottled water from Home Depot. By being over reliant at one store, we cause it to become "king". The malls often have better deals on better quality items. You have buying power-use it.

Now I admit, I do run in to Walmart on occasion for 1 or 2 things. I've learned not to bring a cart into the store and to buy only the bare bones of what I need. I don't see why I should support a megachain that has a sketchy history of respecting employee and human rights.

We live in a country with choices. Particularly for those of us blessed to live in the urban and suburban areas, we have lots of choices. With a little extra planning we can spend the same amount or less on necessary and luxury items without selling ourselves out in the process.

Are Black People ALLOWED to Criticize President Obama (& other Black stars)?

Cornell West is certainly taking a beating. His crime? Criticizing President Obama. Since the election of our fearlessly fair-skinned leader, Black pundits have been uncharacteristically silent on many of the President's proposed bills, vetos, and general conduct. His wife's non-coutour fashion choices have somehow united the usually catty and critical fashion world.

The Obamas certainly are a likable pair, especially in contrast to our last two or three Presidential couples. Their Mid-western friendliness is certainly a welcome change to the pronounced stodginess, coldness, and downright orneriness or his predecessor.

I will contrast a visit to the White House prior to Obama thusly-an armed sentry glaring at tourists who dared to come near the White House barriers (couldn't even get close to the gate at that time).
Post Obama: tons of happy smiling tourists able to take pictures right on the White House gate.

But does this kinder, more accessible president mean his policies are not up for debate-ever?

Not only does President Obama seem to be off limits, but quite a few Black celebrities avoid public censure, despite questionable career and personal choices. Many "Black movies" enjoy the same protected status, even when the stories, casting, acting, and direction are lackadaisical.

As a semi-professional critic, I know the value of being scrutinized and yes, even criticized. Constructive criticism forces one to choose their words carefully, to be ever mindful of the ramifications of hasty decisions, and to constantly strive for the ever elusive goal of perfection. Criticism can be harsh, even emotionally devastating, but isn't that what we sign up for when we choose to live among other people?

Most high achieving people, particularly artistic people, are continually subject to their own internal critic- so public criticism is never as debilitating as their own self-view.

So I say put away the pitch forks, tar, and feathers. Nothing's wrong with mocking the president if he wears mom jeans. If the First Lady enjoys wearing "regular" clothes, the fashionistas have every right to jeer or cheer. If a Black actor delivers a terrible performance, groan and throw popcorn. How else will he know he stinks?

And for heaven's sake, if a well known over-achieving scholar wishes to berate the president for some political gaffe, shouldn't he be allowed?

Hollywood and Holy Films- Closer Than You Think (Part 1)

Are the majority of Hollywood made films "evil"? This is the assumption that is driving the new interest in so-called faith-based films. Over the next few weeks, I will analyze movie released in 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008 to determine if, in fact, this widely held assumption, by religious and agnostics alike, holds any truth. For the sake of my unscientific study, I'll assume "evil" means lots of nudity and profanity. I may expand the study to include other pertinent data, like critical acclaim.

My early film education consisted of 8 basic genres: Drama, Action, Comedy (includes Spoof), Romantic Comedy, Comedy-Drama (or Dramedy), Horror, Suspense (Thriller), and Animated. Informal genres, like Chick Flick (i.e. romantic comedy) also exist. Obviously, genres overlap all the time with varying levels of success. 


For example, The Adjustment Bureau garnered mixed reviews because critics and viewers alike seemed confused by its classification. Many viewers on Yahoo Movies felt that the film was really a romantic drama, but how then to explain the bumbling (but funny) comic relief of the bureaucratic "bad guys" and the incredible CGI effects? Thelma and Louise? Obvious Chick Flick right? I'm not so sure when you consider the attempted rape and emotional ending.

The "genre" of Faith-based film baffles and irritates me because it raises tricky issues. For one, it adds yet another genre to an already clogged film classification system. Two, it fails to describe what the tone of the film is. Can faith-based films include comedy and romance or is it strictly relegated to heavy family dramas like Fireproof? And finally, whose faith are they based on? For now, it applies mainly to Christian films, but will other religious filmmakers be allowed to encroach on "our" territory?

As an avowed film buff, I see tons of movies of various ratings and can assure you that many R-rated films should have been rated PG-13 or lower and many G-rated Animated films should have been rated R because of all the suggestive adult humor (Hoodwinked, Too).

My general experience with films made in the past 5 years or so is that the majority are low on profanity and nudity and high on incredibly bad stories, mediocre acting, and lots of hype. I don't believe I'm desensitized to film but I am absolutely certain when a film of any genre is merely trying to pull on my heart strings in lieu of delivering quality entertainment. 

I feel that Hollywood is being unfairly bullied to some extent because plenty of inappropriate films are on the unregulated bootleg market and no one has mentioned much about the straight-to-dvd market. Let's not forget about the uninspired, crass leftovers that pass for tv shows these days.

Films are, first and foremost, entertainment. The early days of film were of a man riding a giant tricycle or someone tied to a train track silently screaming; not exactly intellectually stimulating material. But in the course of time, human ingenuity refused to be satisfied with such meager fare. Films began to be based on books by serious writers who didn't care to have their hard work visually mocked.  

So here we are in 2011, with movies (films is considered passe) produced by "deep" thinkers and self-proclaimed idiots. Movies must have messages, the Oscars demands. Directors and actors strive to make avant-garde movies. Producers want to be known for producing something "meaningful". Even the MPAA rating system is collapsing under the pressure (remember NC-17?). Most of the time, I can tell what a movie will offer just by the reputation of the director and lead actors. After all, Denzel is never going to star in a slapstick comedy (it ain't gonna happen) and I don't see Quentin Tarantino directing "Smurfs-Part 2".

I'm curious to see what my statistics prove, if anything. Do "evil" movies really make more money than more sanguine ones? Is the faith factor so woefully overlooked by Hollywood that the faith based film "genre" must exist in a separate sphere? Do we need Sunday Services to become its own movie? 

Or is this all a terrible misunderstanding? Are Christians self-alienating from the movie industry for no reason? Are there plenty of faith oriented films in theaters that are inadvertently ignored or misclassified?

There's one thing that this undertaking will certainly prove: Hollywood and Holy Films may be on the brink of overlapping a little too close for comfort.

Books Without Borders

After a lengthy series of tremblings, death tolls, and other harbingers, Borders has finally succumbed to the same fate that it dealt Waldenbooks years ago. Ten years ago, the closing of a bookselling giant would have meant a significant void for avid readers, but now Borders demise is simply a small, but inevitable footnote in the disappearance of books.

The popularity of Ebooks has been blamed for Borders death, but I disagree (I hate e-readers). E-reading's growth trend resulted from the isolation of the dedicated book reader. The overwhelming unpopularity of books in bookstores is truly to blame. I've railed before about the cacophonous layout of Borders- its landscape littered with games, stationery, cds and, of course, the trademark in house cafe-Borders looked more like the Word Market from The Phantom Tollbooth than a proper bookstore.

For me, finding books was the trick.

Richard Nash has suggested, in his CNN Blog, that Borders could have maintained its profitability by being  "...less of a retail experience...focused on selling stuff and more about an event, occasion, a vision..."*
He is, of course, referring to a transition of bookstores from being mere sellers to community resources presenting book discussions, enrichment classes, reading groups, and self-publishing resources; in short, a bookstore about all things BOOK.

I am old enough to recall the days of the traditional bookstore, when all that bookstores sold were books. The spectacled, soft-spoken clerk (who had worked there for years) knew the right book to recommend to anyone from 5-50. I agree that the time is certainly ripe for a new kind of bookstore. A bookstore that serves the needs of readers and not just blindly flings out merchandise and cappuccino at passersby.

Future bookstores, be they megastores, or small local undertakings, must become book experts as once they were. Holding frequent events, such as promoting local authors, will re-energize patrons by introducing new authors and works to the public, even those who don't consider themselves "readers". Hosting writing classes and having theme nights will make the literary experience feel accessible to all. Including the patron in book discussions that go beyond "Are you going to buy that?" will make book buyers understand what they are buying and how it actually contributes to the local good.

Books will survive without Borders, but in the future, we must be very careful about what borders are defining our books.




*Nash, Richard. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/21/nash.borders.books/index.html?iref=allsearch)

Celebrities are Just Like US... You Wish!

Why is it so important for us to imagine that celebrities are just like us? We love the blunt speaking celebrities who "keep it real" and tell it like it is. We, the working class, console ourselves with the thought that celebs have bad hair days, tense family holidays, and occasionally even get fired. Social networking and reality shows have made celebs so accessible that we continue to believe that the carefully edited sound bytes and slideshows actually represent how the celebrity really is.

This delusion is so prevalent that someone posted an online comment praising First Lady Michelle Obama for making her girls make their own beds and do their own laundry...right before their personal limo driver and security detail escorts them to school.

Celebrities are not just like us. 

Primarily because they're famous. While millions of people can identify a celeb, even in sunglasses, most of us blend anonymously into any crowd. Nor should they be just like us. Why should I buy movie tickets for someone who lives just as I do? Where is the excitement of standing in line for hours to buy concert tickets for an everyday joe? Who quotes a politician who's never held an office?

There is a quiet desperation and malicious glee in believing that famous people suffer the same indignities that most of us endure on a daily basis. But indulging in this fantasy for too long unmasks deep seated hypocrisy. Isn't the reason we admire celebrities because of their undeniable beauty and talent? Don't we love them because they stand out from the crowd?

I understand that celebrities are still human beings and may feel a need to try and stay connected to more humble roots, but I don't believe such efforts deserve public praise. After all, their humility is not my gain. After a long day of interviews or rehearsals, the rich and famous go home to fabulous mansions and have access to large bank accounts, no matter how humble they may be. 

So let's not confuse the reality with our reality. Celebrities are people, yes and they do put their pants on one leg at a time, but if they don't, they can always hire someone else to do it for them.

Are Christians Entitled to Hook-Ups?

I recently witnessed a troubling episode where a fellow Christian resorted to somewhat crafty means to get a "freebie" from another Christian. I wish I could say this was the only time I noticed a Christian get something for free from another Christian based on "brotherly" love, but it isn't. As a matter of fact, I believe it is a disturbing and embarrassing misuse of Christ's love when one Christian uses the guise of Christianity to get something for free that they would otherwise have had to pay for.

Abusing biblical teachings of unconditional love, hospitality, and turning the other cheek for selfish and undeserved gain is just wrong. 

Being offered a gift, a discount, or a free stay is one matter. I believe if someone offers you something, even if it is with bad intent, you should accept it gratefully and thank the Lord. Expecting that fellow Christians "ought" to give you things that you want or believe you need is near to extortion. Take the Christian who won't buy a car because they don't "want" a car payment, but gladly accepts gas-free rides from others. Or the Christian who invariably takes 2 or 3 plates from every gathering, but has yet to donate one can of food. How about the Christian who holds up every service or event by being late, then asks for prayers?

Love is not a carte blanche excuse for Christians to take gross and unfair advantage of each other. Rather, it should be used as a means for each of us to serve one another. This means that you don't invite yourself to someone's home for hours or days without asking first and bringing a gift. Sorry, just your presence is not a "blessing." And don't tell them how to run their house while you're there. If you know a Christian who works at a store you like, you don't barge up to them and demand a discount. You don't "borrow" things and never return them. In short, you "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If you don't have suitable living quarters, you shouldn't be at other people's homes 24/7, Christian or not. Get your affairs in order. If you find you can't afford many things, perhaps you should inquire of the Lord about an additional income opportunity so that you can bless other people. If you need a car, don't hope and pray that someone gives one to you. Instead, look for an honest way to pay for it yourself.

The world's model is to "borrow and not repay", but the Godly model is to "give and it will be given unto you".

Temporal freebies indicate a cycle of lack and desperation, instead press and believe for the many free and lasting blessings God already has for you.

MSN NOT SO HOTMAIL

It happened to me. After 10 years, my Hotmail account was hacked. I found out the news this morning as I was doing my once weekly review of my less active email accounts, having switched to Gmail long ago.

To my chagrin, I saw dozens and dozens of suspicious emails with bizarre links. I quickly took action to change my password and inform my friends (from my gmail account) of the incident, but my trust in Hotmail is finally and forever broken.

Out of all my email accounts, including Yahoo, Gmail, and Web accounts, Hotmail has always been the ugly stepchild,  especially for the past 2 years. Checking my Hotmail account has become an unpleasant study in perversity. Hotmail spam is always riddled with pornographic and profane spam. No matter how many times I click "Mark as Spam", the junk keeps coming back, like a pesky bloodthirsty mosquito.

So it finally got me. After doing a Google search, I discovered that lots and lots of other people, including software experts, have been subjected to these annoying email attacks where your entire contact list is sent a series of malicious links.

I am angry at Hotmail for allowing this. They went to the trouble of changing their entire email interface to include such nonsense as the ability to social network through Hotmail (why, when I have Facebook), but couldn't take the time to create better security for their own email system.

Hotmail routinely bombards its email users with absurd ads every time you check email. Even after clicking "full view" the ads continue to display while you commit the cardinal sin of just trying to read your email in peace. I guess that was the writing on the wall.

So the love affair is over. I have no immediate plans to ever again enter the despicable Hotmail domain. Checking email shouldn't be a dangerous undertaking. It shouldn't even be all that interesting.  Just a routine part of today's technological landscape, like anti-virus scanning. Hotmail has clearly trailed behind, sad considering it was once a leader. When criminals can easily access an established email account, that's just too hot for me.

NBC YOU LATER!

Sinking to a network television low, NBC intends to air "The Playboy Club" this fall.  As the name implies, this program is a re-imagining of Hugh Hefner's rise (or freefall) to fame as proprietor of Playboy Magazine.

As a woman, I am disgusted, affronted, and mystified by this high handed decision of a formerly family friendly network to casually alienate and insult millions of women by glorifying women's objectification, especially in a time when the global sex trade, driven by demand for young girls, is running rampant.

As a writer and entertainment advocate, I can't form words to describe what I feel is a poorly conceived and insensitive idea, not to mention the low entertainment value that such a program introduces. Even more appalling is the obvious lack of respect for the women executives and employees who work for NBC.

So what's to be done? I, for one, have no plans to waste time watching a program that lends no value at all to dramatic television. NBC was already on my "list" for cancelling Undercovers and The Event. I can't think of one program currently on the NBC roster that even piques my interest enough to watch a preview. The programming schedule at NBC seems to change with the erratic speed of a hungry chimp leaping for a swaying bunch of bananas.

I have lent my voice to the Facebook campaign, "CAUSES", in the hope that this show will not air and be replaced by programming that is more appropriate, appealing, and frankly, more creative.

http://www.waronillegalpornography.com/urge-nbc-leadership-to-stop-production-of-the-playboy-club/ 

Be Fruitful: The Tyler Perry Production Model

"It takes a week to do a sitcom in Hollywood. I do a show a day in my studio, three or four shows a week." -Tyler Perry. (IMDB.COM)


In less than 10 years, Tyler Perry Studios has released 10 feature films. His television series, "House of Payne" has aired over 200 episodes while "Meet the Browns" is well past 130 episodes. For "Better of Worse", a new series, is set to air shortly. His numerous stageplays have grossed well over $75 million dollars in dvd and ticket sales.


But why is this amount of production the exception and not the rule? Compared to the production capacity of old guard studios like MGM, Paramount, or Columbia, Tyler Perry Studios is still in its nascent stage, however, in terms of sheer production frequency, viewer recognition and popularity, Perry is the upstart start-up already wearing the crown, just as "The Big 5" dethroned RKO in the 1940's.


MGM and its peers are parent companies over a host of subsidiary production studios. Numerous shows and films are produced under the banner of those names, rather than overtly listing the main production company. Tyler Perry Studios, in an apparent shift, releases everything under its auspices, leaving no doubt as to "his" products.


Perry as CEO, producer, writer, and actor also receives a great deal of self generated public exposure, notably through his monthly emails to his fanbase.  Even the most ardent movie goers would have a very hard time naming the president of MGM or Tri-Star, let alone recognizing his face. Marketing at those big studios is handled by separate areas or marketing companies who focus on advertising upcoming films or dvd's. Perry pens personable emails, detailing highly personal information such as grief about the death of his mother and in the process gaining more fans. He invites fans to post on his message board claiming to read the messages in his "spare time."


By the time a movie is released, it has already been tested by select audiences. Perry's studios test too, I'm sure, but he avidly solicits feedback and ostentatiously pushes his fans to go see his films with a "reminder" email  just before opening weekend, while most studios simply bombard us with trailers that only show the few good parts of the film. 


So is Perry an independent filmmaker, part of the Big 6, or a self-contained multi-faceted production unit? He seems to be a magical hybrid of them all - like some exotic superfruit that can heal any and every illness transmitted by the established production industry. 


Remarkably, he's avoided producing any "reality" shows, a curious omission that constitutes an incredibly profitable aspect of the major studios production portfolio. In fact, Perry avoids touching the entertainment products that make others successful. Some may complain that his films are formulaic, but it is a magical, guaranteed money-making formula. New actors appear in every new Hollywood film, while Perry routinely "recycles" actors from his plays and films. It's not uncommon to see the same actor in successive films. His films are usually set in the South, a region still stereotyped in Hollywood films. 


I know Hollywood is listening and watching, nervously? Resentfully? The recent release of "Jumping the Broom" to a tepid critical reception proves that Hollywood is at least experimenting with Perry's "formula". But merely taking the best parts of Perry's productions -attractive Black actors, gorgeous scenery, weddings- and blending it all up is tantamount to grinding up apples, sugar, and a crust and expecting a pie to magically appear.


Perry's mad production schedule continues with the formation of a subsidiary film production company, 34th Street films, whose internet site is not live and about whom only sketchy details exist. He recently took another play on tour (a studio exec on tour?), though he reluctantly cancelled several dates due to exhaustion, proving that he is still human. At the date of this writing, he is planning...who knows? But there is no doubt that he is planning something, because all superfruits produce seeds.

FACT: Women with Cats Make Better Mates

The single girl living with a cat conjures images of a lonely shut-in, but nothing could be further from the truth. Any man serious about finding wife material need only look as far as the kitty litter box. Women who care for cats are more patient, clever, loyal, loving, and sexy just like, well, cats.

The animal kingdom exemplifies and explains human relationships better than any lab rats or Tom Hanks romantic comedy.  Dogs, with their carefree, unquestionable loyalty and skill for hunting animals that humans like to eat, are "man's" best friend.  Rowdy, hardy, and sturdy, dogs display strength and power. But while Rover may be the honorary brother of all men and protector of the family, women need a pet with a slightly more covert personality.

Cats reflect women's character, personality, and moods with the eerie precision of a fun house mirror. Cats often rebuff human affection for no apparent reason. Shameless attention hogs, they insist on being brushed and pet until they sag limply with pleasure. They never tire of softly spoken compliments. Cats appear unapproachable and even arrogant, yet are self-effacing and even self-unaware. Unpredictable, lovable, inscrutable women, uh, I mean cats.

Cats will only "go" in certain places, unwilling to compromise the sanctity of their bathroom breaks and seem to be aware of inner flaws and goodness in humans that we cannot detect.

So while dogs like to "do" the same things as men, cats "act" more like women.

When women care for these beautiful beasts they are, in effect, getting to know themselves better. And women who know themselves better are more confident and secure in who they are. For men, these means a woman who, while still subject to, er, swift (but occasional) adjustments in temperament, are loyal and loving for the long haul.

And a woman who is willing to take care of a four-legged version of herself, can't be a bad deal.

"I Remember"-How Nostalgia For What Never Was Is Wrecking Black Films

The Golden Age of Film. Such sentimental phrases conjure up black and white or sepia images of times when no one locked their doors and every American had a roof over his head and a nickel could buy you breakfast, lunch, and dinner...what?! This essentially is the crux of the rootless debate as to what constitutes "good" or "bad" Black films.

Why Black people want to imagine past films as being "better" than some of today's films baffles me, but if the past holds the secret to the future of Black film, let's go for a stroll down memory lane.

My film watching career really began in the 1990's- that's when I actually began going to the movies. The first film I ever saw was "White Men Can't Jump", starring Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson. I remember it being a very popular film and can't quite recall anyone asking why Rosie Perez, a Hispanic chick, was intimate with Woody, a White boy, on film. We teenagers all had a good laugh over Woody's antics and were (slightly) amazed at his b-ball skills; by then it was well known that White men could, in fact, jump.

Why one film based on a stereotype was one of the 20 highest grossing films of 1992 and produced several mega-stars is beyond me. But it happened.  Is that a "Black" film to be proud of? Okay, maybe that's not Black enough for you, so let's continue down memory lane.

By the way, 1992 was the same year that Boomerang and Malcolm X came out. I don't remember a fall out between Eddie Murphy and Denzel Washington, but I guess it could have happened, behind the scenes.  For the record, Sister Act, Lethal Weapon, The Bodyguard, The Distinguished Gentleman, Passenger 57, Mo' Money, and Candyman were all in theaters AT THE SAME TIME. All of these films starred Black actors.

My point is simple. In one year, many incredibly successful Black movies with different tones and direction were released. There was no argument. There was no debate because there was no need. Some were comic,  crazy and compelling, and others were, well, crappy.

Films are not really meant to be a marker of racial demographics or other socio-political issues, but if people wish to believe that past black films were infinitely better styled,  then there is plenty of evidence that this was not so.  Does this make Martin's Lawrence's hilarious portrayal of Big Momma simply a $25 million embarrassment (opening weekend gross)? I think not.

If I fast forward through the 90's a plethora of Black films crowded the theaters. Gangsta' oriented films dramatically impacted the Black film landscape; Dead Presidents, Boyz n the Hood, Set It Off, Menace II Society, Poetic Justice, to name a few. As a matter of fact, so many gangsta films came out during this time, that a Wayans spoof film was even made. These then gave way to a more romantic spate of Black films, notably The Best Man and Love Jones, along with The Wood and The Inkwell (set in the Vineyard).

The 2000's started off quite promising with Love & Basketball, then The Brothers and Deliver Us From Eva,  but seemed to cool down considerably until T.P. set us on fire for film again (he has 6 and counting under his belt so far) in just 5 years..

Fast forward to 2011.  Now, as then, Black films are starting to saturate the film marketplace again with new directors, producers, and writers. I don't know why the Hughes Brothers, John Singleton, and many other talented directors seemed to stop making movies. Ask them. All I do know is that Black films have had a glorious, topically diverse past and are presently enjoying a Renaissance. Queen Latifah now produces her own films. TD Jakes is staunchly focused on producing more and more Christian films. I'm dying to know who's next.

So to the critics, stop imagining the past as the pinnacle of Black film, it was only the precursor to an even richer period of adventurous and diverse Black filmmaking. And if that doesn't satisfy you, just throw a House Party.

"Produced By Faith": Book Review

Firstly, you have to read this book twice. Any book that describes the inner workings of the Hollywood movie machine ought to be read twice, especially when it's written by a Christian executive.

DeVon Franklin, the Sony movie executive who penned the book, unapologetically lays bare the trials and rewards of working in "the business" as a born again Christian.  Splitting the book into two parts, Development and Production, Franklin congenially styles life as a Hollywood film, with none other than God Almighty as the Director.

As the executive who purchased the "Jumping the Broom" script, Franklin resides in an eviable place in Hollywood, however, he humbly admits that he still feels that he is in Development, both professionally and personally. The book's progression maps Franklin's life from childhood until the present, exposing deep pain, his relentless ambition, and his faith without trying to explain it all away and without dwelling on it. But Franklin is a "process" man and does a remarkable job of meticulously arranging all of his difficulties (and ours) as a script on its way to production, with a bump or two along the way.

Outlining a path to success by just following God's will seems deceptively easy and it is. But Franklin doesn't sugarcoat (he really doesn't) and challenges the reader with lists of probing questions at the end of every chapter as a kind of raw self-assessment. Many are difficult to answer, hence, why I suggest reading the book twice. But ultimately the author does hold your hand. He's the big brother you always wanted and the executive who's actually on your side. Each chapter is gently crafted to speak specifically to your career situation with humorous anecdotes, bold advice, and a tongue-in-cheek look at his own mistakes.

This book is for EVERYONE who is at a career crossroads, dead end, or doing a u-turn, but is particularly useful for Christian writers and filmmakers who may feel that Hollywood is out of reach or the gateway to hell. Even as a Christian producer, he apparently does not feel bound to one particular film genre. Franklin optimistically argues that there is room for every script, if you're willing to go through the entire development process, no matter how long it takes.

Having met Mr. Franklin at a book signing, I can report that the authenticity and earnestness I felt in his book does carry through to the person. He does not "look" like a slick Hollywood exec, but is more or less reminiscent of a young English professor and speaks clearly, without rancor or buzz words sounding, frankly, more like an idealistic young preacher (incidentally, he is ordained).

Well, preach on, Mr. Franklin. The Christian film making world is listening, reading, and watching.

http://producedbyfaith.com